Greg Egan’s short story “Axiomatic” is close to the first scenario. Complete synopsis in rot13:
N zna, n pbzzvggrq cnpvsvfg, unf n tveysevraq jub vf fubg nf n olfgnaqre
va n onax eboorel. Gur eboore vf pnhtug naq pbaivpgrq ohg trgf n fubeg
fragrapr. Gur zna jnagf gb xvyy uvz, lrg vf nyfb bccbfrq gb xvyyvat uvz.
Fb va beqre gb or noyr gb xvyy uvz ur ohlf na vyyvpvg qeht gb ercebtenz
uvf trareny ivrjcbvag gb bar bs
“Crbcyr ner whfg zrng. Gurl qba’g znggre.” Gura ur tbrf gb pbasebag gur
eboore, abj bhg bs wnvy, ohg orsber fubbgvat uvz, ur nfxf jul ur xvyyrq
uvf tveysevraq, naq trgf gur bss-unaq nafjre, “url, fur jnf whfg va gur jnl,
zna”. Gur eboore unq gur fnzr nggvghqr gung ur unf whfg chepunfrq.
Ur wblbhfyl rzcgvrf uvf tha ng uvz, abg va eriratr sbe uvf tveysevraq,
ohg orpnhfr [crbcyr ner zrng, gurl qba’g znggre].
Gur qeht bayl unf n grzcbenel rssrpg, ohg gur fgbel raqf jvgu gur
cebgntbavfg vagraqvat gb trg n irefvba gung jvyy znxr vg creznarag.
So, what do you do with Gandhi after his viewpoint has changed and he’s done the deed? What does Gandhi do with Gandhi?
I think this is a case where hardening the problem by elevating the stakes obscures the issue rather than focussing it. Just about any means can be made to look justified by making the ends important enough.
It feels odd replying to a 4 year old comment, but I am simply too curious as to why all that text in written in what at first glance seems to be random assemblies of letters in the format of whatever Greg Egans story was
Greg Egan’s short story “Axiomatic” is close to the first scenario. Complete synopsis in rot13:
N zna, n pbzzvggrq cnpvsvfg, unf n tveysevraq jub vf fubg nf n olfgnaqre va n onax eboorel. Gur eboore vf pnhtug naq pbaivpgrq ohg trgf n fubeg fragrapr. Gur zna jnagf gb xvyy uvz, lrg vf nyfb bccbfrq gb xvyyvat uvz. Fb va beqre gb or noyr gb xvyy uvz ur ohlf na vyyvpvg qeht gb ercebtenz uvf trareny ivrjcbvag gb bar bs “Crbcyr ner whfg zrng. Gurl qba’g znggre.” Gura ur tbrf gb pbasebag gur eboore, abj bhg bs wnvy, ohg orsber fubbgvat uvz, ur nfxf jul ur xvyyrq uvf tveysevraq, naq trgf gur bss-unaq nafjre, “url, fur jnf whfg va gur jnl, zna”. Gur eboore unq gur fnzr nggvghqr gung ur unf whfg chepunfrq. Ur wblbhfyl rzcgvrf uvf tha ng uvz, abg va eriratr sbe uvf tveysevraq, ohg orpnhfr [crbcyr ner zrng, gurl qba’g znggre].
Gur qeht bayl unf n grzcbenel rssrpg, ohg gur fgbel raqf jvgu gur cebgntbavfg vagraqvat gb trg n irefvba gung jvyy znxr vg creznarag.
So, what do you do with Gandhi after his viewpoint has changed and he’s done the deed? What does Gandhi do with Gandhi? I think this is a case where hardening the problem by elevating the stakes obscures the issue rather than focussing it. Just about any means can be made to look justified by making the ends important enough.
Slight nitpick on your summary of the story:
Gur cebgntbavfg qbrf abg rzcgl uvf tha vagb gur eboore zreryl orpnhfr crbcyr ner zrng naq qba’g znggre. Vafgrnq, gur cebgntbavfg unq vagraqrq gb yrg gur eboore yvir orpnhfr gur cebgntbavfg ernyvmrq gur jubyr fvghngvba jnf nofheq naq abguvat znggrerq nalzber, abg rira uvf tveysevraq’f qrngu (vg’f nzovthbhf nf gb jurgure gur qeht jnf gur cevznel pnhfr bs uvz pbzvat gb guvf pbapyhfvba). Gur cebgntbavfg ghearq gb jnyx njnl, naq gung’f jura gur eboore ehfurq uvz. Va ernpgvba/frys qrsrafr, gur cebgntbavfg fubg gur eboore. Nsgre frrvat gung ur jnf qrnq, gur cebgntbavfg sryg ab erzbefr naq yrsg.
It feels odd replying to a 4 year old comment, but I am simply too curious as to why all that text in written in what at first glance seems to be random assemblies of letters in the format of whatever Greg Egans story was
http://rot13.com/